What other RTS games with somewhat realistic battlefield maneuvers like RTW/MTW are worth taking a look at?
Alexander looked interesting but reviews said it sucked.
Printable View
What other RTS games with somewhat realistic battlefield maneuvers like RTW/MTW are worth taking a look at?
Alexander looked interesting but reviews said it sucked.
Alexander does suck m8.. Legion Arena looks Cool,so does Imperial Glory or XIII Centruy,I think it is called..
I never played these games, but everyone I asked thought that none of them could match R:TW's tactical battles. Alexander the Great was too easy. Legion: Arena was actually rather hard, but it put some artificial constraints on the player. None the less, some veteran .Org members said it was enjoyable, as long as you did not expect too much out of it.
Imperial Glory is more serious contender, as it contains both sea battles and a more advanced campaign. However, for some reason I have heard no-one say CA could learn from IG in this aspect, so that's a bad sign. A friend of mine said the land battles were a disappointment due to bad balance. Maybe this has been improved since with patches, I don't know.
So as it is, the TW series still stands unchallenged
From what I've heard Imperial Glory will be your best bet. I dont think legion arena even has a campaign?
So anyone tried AOE3 or Imperial Glory?
Replicating NApoleonic scenes of like Austerlitz would be interesting. I'm more interested in the battle aspect (formations, movements, tactics etc) since strategy isn't really my cup of tea.
Not like R:TW indeed, but you have to do a succession of battles with the same army (which you can expand and upgrade in between).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovereign
I see, interesting I suppose. Hey actually come to think of it does anybody not think that would be a good idea for M2TW multiplayer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
I think they should add a Ranking for your Army on MTW 2..
you should be able to sign your army up at,say,totalwar.com
I'll use my Selecius for this Matter
4 Silver Sheild Pikes
4 Phalanx Pikes
4 Legions
2 Chartios
3 Eles
3 Cats
so, you go,say, send them a pic of your army in a army deployment stage, on SP or MP, and tell them the units,and they shouls sign your army up..
you should be able to play witho ther armies, but if you say,win 100 games with the army you signed up with,with only losing 10 games or under (100-10) then you should get,a free copy guide for MTW 2. winn 500 games without losing more then 40 games or more, then you get 2 free copies of TW games (STW and MTW for example)..
I hate Imperial Glory with a passion. they really destroyed a potentially very good game.
Actually, I was wondering the same question and found out that there isn't any such game...the above mentioned ones look SIMILAR, but it's not it...of course, you might try good old Centurion, but that's reaaaally old:)
Good tactical game is earth 2160. It's classical rts but quite itneresting.
Hey Krook,sup,you still post on .net right??
anyhow,
Earth 2160 looks pretty cool,so what do you exatcly do in it,krook??
I've noticed that anyone who is a true TW player (meaning, they naturally prefer it over any other strategy games...just something about it feels "right") really isn't going to find that same "home" with any other game.
Sure I've tried the games mentioned up top, but I just kept longing for them to be more and more like RTW, but they're not.
As for AoE3: GREAT GAME!!! No joke...this game is fantastic, and other than RTW and BI is the only game installed on my computer right now. However, it is TOTALLY different than total war. It's a resource management, economy/military work hand in hand fast paced RTS. It really has nothing in common with total war. Again though, if you like strategy, and you like big battles, you are only doing yourself a giant favor by trying out AoE3. Just keep in mind what I said: It, nor any other game, is ever going to have the same "grip and feel" as total war. The inherit nature of this franchise is a turn based/rts hybrid system. No other game even offers that (as far as I know) ...and it's what creates that feel of "realism" that other games don't give you. Other games just don't let you build your own dynastic power from scratch (or not, your choice) and literally pick and choose every aspect of how you want to carve out your dynasty. The campaign map is totally unique also and is another thing that sets this apart from any other strategy game. It's that hybrid feel of deep strategy on the map and deep micromanagment strategy on a battlefield that make this franchise what it is. I haven't even gone into diplomacy, mods, large community etc.
Bottom line: you're just not going to find anything that really has the same "flavor" of TW. Not saying you'll never play a game you like more, but in order for that to happen, it would have to be a game that's SO good, that it basically reconfigures your taste.
The only two games that ever did that for me were: TW, and WOW. Both changed my tastes in their respective genres, and there's still nothing out that can touch that for me.
Imperial Glory wasn't awful, but certainly was a lesson in lost opportunities for greatness. The diplomacy model was great, even if there were a few bad exploitable arrangements. The poor battle balance really killed any long term enjoyment though.
If they ever patched it to make infantry or artillery meaningful, or changed the annoying insurrections in conquered territories that resulted in repeated battles with greater armies than the full empire had fielded, I'd definitely give it a second look.
I really like the tactical battles in TW. I can't stand micro-managing building and resources and constantly get into trouble in that portion in strategy games.Quote:
Originally Posted by General4Hire
Well, I don't know of anything quite like RTW, but I can suggest a few other good RTSs. Any of the Command and Conquer games would be good, as well as any AoE game, but if you don't like micromanagement, then stay away from both of those. Starcraft is pretty good, too.
Of course, I prefer RTW over any of those...
No one here seems to have mentioned Cossacks or Cossacks 2. I haven't played them (can't bear traditional RTSs) but there's a long thread on the latter in the Arena forum here on the Org and the battles do sound rather tactical.
The other game no one has mentioned before of course is Shogun Total War. The battles in that game are arguably better than those in MTW and RTW (Shinano, anyone?) although the strategic portion of the campaign is much weaker IMO (Hojo horde, anyone?).
Legion Arena reall does suck. AOE3 is really good, but then again, if you don't like Micro guys, stay with TW games then..
lots of people who has AOE3 says its not really good.
but i have AOE2 and the expansion and its pretty good.
by the way wats Imperial Glory?
whoa i checked on Gamespot wats Imperial Glory and it looks exactly like Total War. But it said theres no morale! That sucks!
After RTW the best game in this type is undoubtedly Praetorians! It's not published yesterday, but its graphic and gamefeeling is similar to the rtw's. We can follow Caesar, Augustus and Antonius on their way with the main fights and battles. Besides the Romans, we can play in multi with the Gauls and Egyptians which have own units and buildings of course. A great adventage of the game is the very hard campaign in 20 missions. If you can it complete, you are a real warlord!
I always liked Empire Earth. You could play from the stone age to the future. It was also rather hard. Certainly not a "more units = better" game. Even the games superunits (atomic bombers :2thumbsup: ) are not overpowered. I heard that Empire Earth 2 is even better, especially in multiplayer.
Empire Earth 2, is really good in Muti.. I have it :-) :-)
Another game I personally feel worthy of a mention is Rise of Nations.
It too combines turn based grand strategy with a RTS component (its biggest) which is used to achieve your imediate strategic goals.
The historical timeline is immense though, and sometimes feels like Civilisation on speed :laugh4:
Most others are all the same standard RTS fare. They are all about numbers and not tatics but I'd be interested to hear of any others that are out there as well.
Come to think of it, there is one game that has almost identical hybrid type of gameplay, but in fantasy enviroment - Birthright. Check it out if you can, it's sure worth playing, but it's rather old - 1997. Still the graphics is surprisingly good.
It's got a lot of issues other than just no morale. Trust me, 99% chances are that you would be doing yourself NO justice by purchasing IG. If you have RTW and BI, that's all you need...any money you slapped down on IG would probably be considered a waste in your book. There's just nothing that it does as good as or better than RTW except maybe naval battles which are bugged to hell. Besides, although I know I'm in the minority, I like RTW's naval battles...I like the system for some reason. Too bad MTW2 won't even have naval battles (although this really isn't that important during this time period...in other words, really doesn't make a difference to me, and I speculate most gamers).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spartan
LOL :laugh4: The discussion has somewhat deviated from the original question but I suppose that's a good sign :2thumbsup:. Allow me to join in!Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
To answer the question, Total War stands PROUD and APART, hands down. For some reason, nobody else (AND that really means nobody) has gotten the formula right, even if it's so logical. Traditional RTS games have been around for quite some time, but none (until Shogun) have truly captured what many players have been clamoring for.
Comparing Total War with the Traditional RTS:
- Battles weren't fought by a handful of troops, they were epic, massive affairs.
- Soldiers didn't stand/walk around then start shooting/hitting each other when they met. They did maneuvers, they flanked their opponents, archers didn't shoot their arrows in melee, cavalry didn't run up to their opponents and started wacking them - they charged! ... (you get the point...)
- Soldiers never got lost because of poor pathfinding, they marched together in formations, side-by-side, in a line facing the enemy.
- Battles weren't decided by how fast your reflexes are to tell that mage to cast his healing spell or those peasants to start building, but by your skill in the battlefield, the skill of your troops, you luck, etc... but really not your reflexes.
- Plus a lot of other things I can't remember right now...
All of the above apply in particular to games with ancient settings, or settings loosely based on ancient times like fantasy. Total War somehow captured it right, and everyone agreed, and it was all good from then on :2thumbsup:. I've played so many RTS games until I got Shogun, and I never got another RTS after that (except Homeworld 2 but that's different :laugh4:)
Worth a brief look is 'Fields of Glory', a strategy game made way back in about '92-94. It was probably the first attempt a developer made to create an accessible strategy game. It's set in the Napoleanic wars era and was actually quite a blast at the time. There's no campaign strategy, just a series of battles to fight. Worth tracking down at some abandonware site. So it looks and sounds poor against todays games, but there's something satisfying about seeing a unit of riflemen take up defensive positions in a farmhouse and single-handily hold off the enemy advance whilst waiting for reinforcements arrive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by professorspatula
Played it, sure agree - battles are pretty well done. Just one thing - game will inevitably be to fast on today's computers, and there's no way to slow it.
Another pro - game has excellent unit encyclopaedia - giving info on practically every French, British, Prussian regiment that took part in battles around Waterloo.
You can find it on Underdogs abandonware site (I'm not familiar with talking about other sites - if it's not allowed, mods please remove this) - actually I'm the game host for this game there, so feel free to visit and read the review.
Well there is that. Although Dos emulators like Dosbox tend to run old games pretty slow, well on my PC anyway. People using Win98 can stick their PC into Dos mode, then use a slow-down program like Moslo to slow things down. Some old games are a lost cause trying to play on modern machines though.
Hehe i feel the same. I just hate this whole build your army from the scratch every time concept. Build your cities/civilization from the scratch every time ( i wonder what happened with settlements i builded in earlier battle).Quote:
(can't bear traditional RTSs)
Build as many man as you can and send them against enemy with no plan or cohesion. And ofcourse the silly concept that you have to win each and every battle to achieve victory (thats so silly). And last thing, no campainge element.
Its terrible.
I like only two games with RTS elements.
Total Ware series is the best by far. Second great game series was Close Combat.
This was great WWII battlefield combat simulation. Unfortunately part IV was awful (it was destroyed by much to small battlemaps). Part V was better but still didnt hold me to long, it was a bit easy and it missed most important element.
It didnt recreate massive allied air superiority. Witch was so unrealistic and made the game to easy (afther playing it i can say that without this massive air superiority allies invasion would not suceed).
Its getting even worse now. Now i find it hard to play games that have decent campagne element (but none is such complex as RTW) but lacks battlefield element. I just hate seeing my beautiful army being misused by computer in autocalc.
I hope that in future we will see more TW like games.
Imperial Glory was a nice try. Its not good and i didnt like the demo but at least it uses TW concept.
Hopefully other companies will try the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LorDBulA
It is THE most realistic WWII strategy, and if there are two games I wanted most to be continued it were Close Combat and Fallout (3). CC is history. Hope that Fallout makes something worthwhile.
Couldn't agree more about IV and V. Have you played the second part? Seems it's okay, but I never got it to work on new computer. Still the Russian front is undoubtedly the best.
Sid Meier's Gettysburg had real time battles that were rather like Total War. Arguably even more historically accurate with morale (cohesion?) being central. The engine was later used for Austerlitz and Waterloo, by Breakaway Games, IIRC.
However, I could not get into them. Firstly, there was no strategic campaign of TW style to hook you in to playing the battles. Second, the graphics seemed rather ropey to me and the whole thing just lacked the excitement and wow factor of TW battles. The games felt too sedate and the controls too clunky and overly complex (the commands for TW become remarkably intuitive after a while).
Ow yea that was also great game.Quote:
Sid Meier's Gettysburg
Unfortunately i played only demo, but it was superb.
Some time ago i aquire copy of this game but unfortunately i cant make it run properly on XP :( and yea graphic is a bit obsolete.
Yea i played it. It was good.Quote:
Have you played the second part?
In third part i mised one element that was present in Second part.
You could choose when you want to make your next attack (2 hours from now, 4 hours from now etc..) and in third part you could only make next attack on the other day.
I just hope that TW wont repeat history of CC. That would be so sad.
The best possible combination - Paradox Crusader Kings(or EU2) campainmap + TW battlemap ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by LorDBulA
I think that RTW map is much superior. Dropping province concept for army movements was a great step forward. Your armies now have total freedom and i love this. You can choose easier/safer rote, protect passes, build forts to restrict enemy movements, lay ambushes, make raids on enemy settlements (like my gatai raid on Athens, on the way i had to pass through Epirhotes lands and Makedon lands, actually it was raid on Epirhotes but since they agreed to pay ransom when i threaten to attack they city i shifted my attention to Athens).Quote:
Paradox Crusader Kings(or EU2) campainmap
Its incredible.
The only problem is that this new map is so good and complex that AI have troubles to keep up.
What i like most in Paradox games is the number of factions, nice diplomacy. .
CK has few good things - manpower concept so you have only certain amount of certain troop types from province, well portrayed feudal interactions, great political interactions.
If AI could use the freedom of movement in RTW properly it would be good, but all this dipomatic, political depth in Paradox games makes its camp map better (for me) than RTW. On the other hand i could hardly stand how the battles are calculated :(
I think that manpower element should be very much considered for some future TW. It's realistical and can really show the difference between vast empires and city-states.
Well I tried AoE3 and it just didn't work out for me. I'm not going to even start comparing the TW series to other strategy games. There is no match of a game out there, especially when it comes to my dear old Shoggy! I think I'll never get over it.:no: As for AoE3, even though my PC makes it possible to enjoy its wonderful visual aspects in full glory, I believe that the gameplay aspect is actually inferior to AoE2. I wouldn't recommend buying it, you get used to all the eye-candy after a while.
In general, I develop alergy when I see the peasants chopping woods and gathering resources...and then making buildings...God, I love turns...and non-resource combat...
Aye. Its well over stayed its welcome. I remember Age of Empires and the constant berry picking!!! Arrrggghhh!!Quote:
Originally Posted by BelgradeWar
hey heh...I actually like AOE3's gather resources system. I think AOE3 is a fantastic "modern" version of warcraft, only using realistic units and the such. However, I still never find myself able to click on that button, rather than the Rome button on my computer. Come to think of it, after I bought BI and updated the new patches a few weeks ago, Rome is the only game installed on my pc :laugh4:
I like that in TW you HAVE to stress and deeply, deeply strategize on how to run your economy, production, arms buildup, "research" etc...but that you're not, as some have pointed out, actually controlling how many berries are picked off of a plant. I prefer grand strategy to micromanagement. There's no building an "empire" in traditional RTS's. Not at all. Games are over in 2 hours at most (at MOST...sometimes I've heard of a WC3 or AoE3 game going 3-4 hours, but only with multiple players of high skill). It's just not enough for me...I want to be able to build MY army, MY way, at MY time. If I want to dig in for 30 turns and turtle, I can...it's a viable strategy for booming. On AOE3, turtling and playing defensively is really not a viable strategy for winning the "war"...just the inital skirmish battle. It's just not "grand strategy". MTW and RTW let me build my own nation, on my terms...over a long period of time, competing against other empires that are flourishing as well. I just don't get that out of any other game. And the battles themselves are amazing in TW games...sorry, hands down, nothing else will EVER touch TW battles heh. :no:
I will also add that I have found myself, sitting around with a cup of coffee or soda in the morning looking over the campaign map on my monitor before I play for the day. It almost is like a living breathing world...with wars, economies, leaders, heros, and an ultimate goal. I just don't get that experience out of any other game. Same reason why I loved WOW in the mmorpg genre...it was just a massive living breathing world the likes never before offered in the genre before. (don't get me started on mmo's...I'm done with them...they just eat a hole that's way too large into my life heh..that and raiding parties can be quite..."interesting"...)
I think the TW series was so far ahead of its when it first came out that there is nothing that can come close. All the other RTS are still stuck in a time warp, berries and all! :s
As great as it is however, I think Total War has a lot to improve on on the strategic aspect of gameplay (diplomacy and the way you interact with other factions in general). I've had a lot of TW games where I feel like I'm playing a slower version of a Free-For-All multiplayer FPS, wherein you just run around and shoot people. Here, I was simply amassing armies and sending them out en masse, without even moving a single diplomat. :no:
Heck, Total War could learn a few things from Civilization, Crusader Kings, even Galactic Civlizations! (Which, IMO, has one of the best AI in the turn-based strategy genre). :2thumbsup:
In the past I used to play a lot of RTS games. Now I prefer RPG and stealth games(Hitman,Splinter Cell). The only strategy games I love are the total war series.
Resource gathering is too boring and silly! And almost all RTS has it!:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joan of Arc